United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chin et al

Filing 54

ORDER Accepting 49 Report and Recommendations. 7 Order to Show Cause is made absolute in part and discharged in part. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/27/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01336-PAB-BNB
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Applicant,
v.
RAYMOND Y. CHIN,
KENYATTO MONTEZ JONES,
HENNING D. MORALES,
BENJAMIN J. PORT,
ALAN M. ROTHMAN,
RONALD C. TOUCHARD,
MISTY D. TOUCHARD,
AUGUST, INC.,
DELTA CONSULTING, LLC,
EWORLD COMPANIES, INC.,
GLOBALQX,
KNIGHT CONSULTING CORP.,
MONARCHY CAPITAL, INC.,
NEBTROPOLIS CONSULTING, INC.,
NEWPORT HOLDINGS, INC.,
NEWPORT STOCKS, INC.,
NUTRIPURE BEVERAGES, INC.,
PREZENSE, INC.,
RMT CONSULTING, INC.,
SUNRISE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,
TOUCHARD FAMILY TRUST, and
RBID.COM, INC.,
Respondents.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on November 29, 2012 [Docket No. 49]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within

fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on November 30, 2012. No party has objected to the
Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 49] is
ACCEPTED.
2. The Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 7] shall be made absolute in part and
discharged in part as follows:
a. The Order to Show Cause is discharged with respect to respondents
Ronald Touchard, Misty Touchard, Benjamin J. Port, and Alan M. Rothman, and they

1

This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2

shall not be required to provide a detailed privilege log of the documents claimed to be
subject to the protections of the Fifth Amendment (other than with respect to category
3(a) of the subpoenas).
b. The Order to Show Cause is made absolute with respect to respondents
Ronald Touchard, Misty Touchard, Benjamin J. Port, and Alan M. Rothman, and they
shall be required to provide a detailed privilege log of the documents claimed to be
subject to the protections of the Fifth Amendment with respect to category 3(a) of the
subpoenas.
c. The Order to Show Cause is made absolute with respect to respondents
August, Inc., Newport Stocks, Inc., RMT Consulting, Inc., Touchard Family Trust,
RBID.com, Inc., Prezense, Inc., Global QX, and Nutripure Beverages, Inc., and any
claim for Fifth Amendment protection concerning their documents must be asserted in a
particularized manner and document-by-document.

DATED December 27, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3